RAKESH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECTION 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'atrocities Act') has been a subject matter of legal battle since the Act came into force: SECTION-18 of the Atrocities Act reads as under: "18. SECTION 438 of the Code not to apply to persons committing an offence under the Act - Nothing in section' 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offerce under this Act. " SECTION 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for grant of anticipatory bail to persons apprehending their arrest. It provides inter alia, that when any person has reason to apprehend that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or to a Court of Sessions for a direction that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.

(2.) THE question for consideration before me is whether the provisions of Sec. 18 of the Act providing denial of the right of anticipatory bail in respect of offences committed under the Act should be interpreted in the manner that it even debars the Court to have judicial scrutiny to the facts of the case to find out whether an offence under the Act was committed or not before declining pre-arrest bail to a person apprehending arrest?

(3.) IN Ramdayal and Ors. vs. State of M. P. (2), a learned Single Judge of M. P. High Court (Sachinder Dwivedi J.) also considered this aspect and it was held that a judicial scrutiny of the facts of the case was permissible to find out that the person is involved in the offence or connected with the offence under the Act as to attract the rigour of Sec. 18 of the Act. It was observed as under: - "on the allegation that a particular person has committed an offence or is an accused under the Act or if he has been so described by the Police as an accused, the Court would not without examining the merits of the accusation, dismiss his application, where there is no material to reasonably raise a suspicion of the commission of an offence, it cannot be said that there is an accusation within the meaning of section 18 of the Act; and the maintainability of application under Section 438, Cr. P. C. cannot be challenged.